Pedagogy of discrimination: instrumental jazz education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jazz has been a familiar element of secondary music curricula in the United States since the late 1960s (Worthy 2013). Yet, as broader social dialogue addresses equity and justice concerning gender and sexuality, secondary instrumental jazz education remains underrepresented in those discussions. Pressures to conform to heteronormative notions and performances of gender and sexuality in this field demand participants deemphasize aspects of their identities in order to avoid stigmatisation, a practice known as ‘covering’ (Yoshino 2002). Pressure to perform gender and sexuality ‘intelligibly’ (Butler 1999) can serve as motivation toward assimilation or as a force of discrimination (Yoshino 2002). Thus, in this paper I argue historically that established and contemporary instrumental jazz pedagogies comprise acts of discrimination. I recommend ways of troubling heteronormativity embedded in conventional methods of teaching aspects of instrumental jazz such as improvisation and swing feel. Suggestions are offered for shifts toward diminishing discriminatory pressures to cover.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it